Political Parties and Elections Bill

I thank noble Lords for this interesting debate, particularly the story of the conversion of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, from being an agnostic to a supporter of the basic principle. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for in his careful way of reminding us that behind this Bill is consensus. On this clause, I believe that that consensus is strong. I note that those who participate in the debate all support the basic principle of nominated commissioners. Clause 5 makes provision which enables the appointment to the commission of four commissioners with recent political experience. These commissioners are referred to as nominated commissioners. Clause 5 requires that three of the four nominated commissioners must have been put forward for appointment by the leaders of the three largest political parties in Parliament, with the remaining nominated commissioner put forward by the leader of one smaller party. This amendment seeks to insert criteria which the registered party leaders must satisfy themselves would be met in putting forward their nominee for the post of nominated commissioner. These criteria are that: ""registered party leaders must ensure … that the nominated person has relevant experience in the conduct of elections and the organisation of political parties; and … have regard to the desirability for the overall composition of the Commission to benefit from diverse representation"." I fully appreciate the intention behind the amendment, which I believe is to ensure that the individuals who are put forward by the leaders of their parties have the relevant experience and skills that would enable them contribute positively to the overall effectiveness of the commission, with the advantage that an organisation gains from a diverse membership. Given the Electoral Commission’s role in relation to elections and party financing, there will no doubt be general agreement in this Committee that the nominees should have relevant experience in these fields. Noble Lords will also agree that diversity is important and should be appropriately taken into account in making these nominations. There will be other essential and desirable criteria which the Committee believes should be met by a person before he or she is put forward for appointment as a nominated commissioner. However, I do not think that the best way forward would be to set out these criteria in legislation. Through Clause 4, we have made it clear that responsibility for the recruitment and selection process of the electoral commissioners lies with the Speaker’s Committee. It should therefore be a matter, first, for the party leaders, and then for the Speaker’s Committee working in conjunction with the Electoral Commission and relevant stakeholders, to decide the necessary criteria and appropriate candidates for the post of nominated commissioner. I have no doubt that party leaders will consider, in putting forward candidates for appointment, whether the nominees have the requisite skills, experience and other attributes. In addition, we have every confidence that the Speaker’s Committee will give careful consideration to agreeing robust and relevant criteria for the post of nominated commissioner. The Speaker’s Committee will no doubt communicate these criteria to registered party leaders to ensure that they are able to make informed nominations. For these reasons, we do not believe that setting separate criteria in legislation would serve any useful purpose. Doing so would seem to prejudge the outcome of any consideration that the Speaker’s Committee might want to give as to what the appropriate criteria should be before it has had the chance to consult the relevant interests. It would reduce flexibility if there was any desire to change those criteria over time. In addition, it could be misleading, by giving the impression that it is only these specified criteria which must be met before a person can be considered for appointment. The point of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, about the committee cutting deals was well made. It is essential that it is not that kind of committee. It is important to realise that appointing nominated commissioners does not alter the role and functions of the Electoral Commission. Nominated commissioners are not intended to represent political parties and will, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, be in a minority. The terms of office for nominated commissioners will be the same as for other commissioners, the only difference being that the restriction on political experience is lifted. Terms of office and other criteria will be set by the Speaker’s Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, asked how the Speaker’s Committee selects members of the Electoral Commission. In practice, the committee has always recruited electoral commissioners on the basis of open competition in accordance with the OCPA principles, despite not being bound by statute to do so. The commission’s staff make decisions on penalties, seeking approval of commissioners as appropriate. Nominated commissioners from the four different parties will not be in a majority and will be expected to act in a non-partisan way. The reason that we feel that we need to resist the amendment is, first, the level of consensus that sits behind this part of the Bill and, secondly, that we do not see the value of having criteria in the Bill; we think that the Speaker’s Committee working with party leaders and other stakeholders is the appropriate place. On this basis, I hope the noble Lords will agree to withdraw their amendments.